Thursday, December 18, 2014

Here is an example of someone who is on the right side, but doesn't understand that you never win by spurning your allies:

I felt like talking about this topic because I’ve noticed the ease of which people will dismiss you, especially if you happen to be on the other side of the Anita Sarkeesian/GamerGate argument and you’re not a woman-hating bastard.

Honestly it feels like I’m supposed to just keep my trap shut sometimes.

Now let me get one thing straight. By “Other side,” I don’t include the sexists, the woman haters and those who argue in bad faith. I mean people who have valid critiques of Anita Sarkeesian and others like her. What I noticed from my petition post was the willingness of the people arguing for Anita to not even bother to ask what my own opinion on her were. Instead my post was met with “ugh” and Feminist Frequency videos. Not once was I asked, “Well why are you against Anita? Is there any particular reason why you don’t want her working on Mirrors Edge 2?” These questions weren’t even asked until I pointed out the fact that they were willing to automatically go in on the attack before even knowing what my reasoning was.

What he and other would-be moderates fail to realize is that the anti-GamerGate, pro-Sarkeesian, SJW side is not reasonable and is never going to be convinced by sweet reason. They have no interest in it and little capacity for it.

This is the same divide between dialectic and rhetoric that I keep pointing out to everyone. You do NOT fight a rhetorical battle with dialectic; in a rhetorical battle the only use for dialectic is in a rhetorical manner; it can be used to explode pseudo-dialectic poses, but that is the extent of its effectiveness. It is an intrinsically defensive weapon on the rhetorical level. This means you cannot win with it.

The primary difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left instinctively defends its extremists and the Right instinctively runs from them and leaves them out to dry. The latter is an appeasement strategy, and it works about as well as the infamous failures of appeasement we all know from history.

All appeasement does is signal to the SJW what buttons he needs to push in order to force an opponent to retreat. When you dutifully point out that "you don't agree with everything X says" or "don’t include the sexists, the woman haters and those who argue in bad faith", what you are accomplishing is not the inoculation of your argument from their extremist taint, you are telling the SJW exactly how he can rhetorically defeat you by painting you as the very sort of extremist you disavow. And remember, rhetorical victory is the entirety of their objective!

Embrace the extremists. Defend them. Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated. Allow them to play their role as the intellectual shock troops they are. That is how you win. Because if they're not taking the incoming fire, you are. And the shock troops are much better equipped psychologically to take it and survive than the average self-styled moderate.

One of the chief reasons behind appeals to moderation and for cutting off the more extreme allies is apparently (based on what I've been seeing and hearing) that moderation will convince the undecided. This would also seem to be based in their belief that SJWs are a very loud but powerless minority, as opposed to being representative of the moral zeitgeist.

Middle Ground is meaningless if one side refuses to take a step toward it. What you end up with is one side continually edging closer to the other. Most notably this has happened with the GOP in relation to the Democratic Party. The DP has never compromised on their position, but the GOP has compromised so often that both parties now belong in the left aisle.

Progressives in general are not people you talk with, but talk at, or even talk over. They find the very idea of having their values and position open to question to be an immediate and almost decisive defeat, because it means they can be questioned, and they absolutely despise having to justify their views. They want to begin any conversation with nothing but immediate concessions across the board: "Feminism is great in all ways, anti-feminists are monsters. Misogyny is a huge and major problem that is crippling all women everywhere, to doubt this is to promote it."

Vox Day wrote:The primary difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left instinctively defends its extremists and the Right instinctively runs from them and leaves them out to dry. The latter is an appeasement strategy, and it works about as well as the infamous failures of appeasement we all know from history.

This is the most important lesson of the day boys and girls. Take it to heart. Memorize it. Have it tattooed on your chest. This is the reason we have been consistently losing in the public arena.

Watch the Democrats. They exhibit the classic behavior that Vox ascribes to the Left. Their opponents are always in appeasement mode. This is why conservatives can never retain power long enough to do any good, and it is why libertarians can never make headway.

JP wrote:Middle Ground is meaningless if one side refuses to take a step toward it.

The middle ground is meaningless period. An old man I knew in my teens who had traveled the world as a musician between the '30s and '60s once told me, "THe middle of the road is for yellow stripes and dead skunks." If you are not a coward, you value principle over pragmatism. Anything else means you lose.

Conan was right: "What is most important in life? To drive your enemies before you, crush them underfoot, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen people make conciliatory statements like, "I disagree with Anita but I still think sexism is a big problem that needs to be addressed," only to be strung up with the same rope as all the other "abusers" and "harassers." They think by conceding the other side has a point they will reach some kind of common ground and promote a useful discussion. But this discussion never seems to occur.

The only real way to win is to flip the script. Why are they so obsessed with gender? Can't they see people as just people? Seems kinda sexist. Avoid the attempts to redirect and stay on point. Let them make an ass out of themselves and others will notice.

"Disagreement is one thing, but to shout one side down because you’ve automatically assumed that the reason they stand against you is because they hate women or they’re angry misogynistic bullies isn’t entirely fair."

Not entirely fair perhaps, but he implies at least partly fair. And certainly if anyone does qualify as "sexist!" or any of the other social justice warrior "disqualify!" words, well go ahead and disqualify them. Shout them down! (And keep all the weak spirits who are afraid that they might be "sexist!" etc. tone-policed and walking on eggshells.)

And this will be useful... why?

People like that have always frustrated me. How do you meet his argument? He hasn't got one. How do you argue against his strategy? He doesn't have one; he's part of the "four legs good, two legs baaad!" chorus that wants a license to have a dissident opinion this once.

What's the best way to search this blog for instructive posts on "Rhetoric" and "Rhetoric versus Dialectic"?

What's the best book (useful for the 21st Century and modern issues) available on Kindle?

Well, I'd say it's a bit more complex than that. There are two kinds of middle grounds: One involving a moral compromise, where option A involves being true to principle X, and B to principle Y, and the so-called middle ground involves being false to both, hoping that neither side will be VERY angry with you because you were only moderately false.

But then there is the case where there are two opposite errors to which you are in danger, and avoiding both. Let's take the issue of emotions, or mysticism, or whatever you want to call it, in relation to Christianity.

Now, there are two errors looming on both sides of the correct path. For one, you might just throw away everything that isn't pure logic, and become an annoying pinhead who definitely isn't going to "Rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep". On the other, you might become a mushy emo Christian who rejects anything that doesn't feel good, and is ALL about Kumbahyah and possibly spiritualistic phenomena (tongues, prophecy etc.). Anything even remotely Biblical is "quenching the Holy Spirit" or "putting God in a box".

It is important to be able to tell the difference between these two things, that both could be described as "middle ground".

Markku wrote:It is important to be able to tell the difference between these two things, that both could be described as "middle ground".

You make a good point, but I would posit that Example #2 is (a) rare, and (b) not supported by verifiable principles, and (c) the kind of people who find themselves in that situation are not to be taken seriously.

I will ponder this to see if I can come up with instances in my own life where Example #2 have occurred. I can think of none off the top of my head, but then, this may be one of my blind spots (and I have several). Thanks for pointing this out, Markku.

Repost, since I think the first one got lost:Consider Todd Akin in 2012. Never mind siding with him. Refusing to nuke him where he stood likely cost the GOP that election.

Stand with dissenters who have something productive to say. But embracing every idiot with partial allegiance is madness. Have the Dems embraced their poster children of Fred Phelps and Lyndon Larouche?

Example a: Many teenage Calvinists. Especially those for whom it is the first experience with any kind of systematic theology.Example b: Many Pentecostals. Just take it from me. I know of which I speak.

he can rhetorically defeat you by painting you as the very sort of extremist you disavow Because the supposed mod is in point of fact disavowing it himself by not defending it. Blood in the water, and all that.

Honestly it feels like I’m supposed to just keep my trap shut sometimes. This desperate, emotive, exasperated sigh tells us all we need to know about his psych frame.

Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated. Allow them to play their role as the intellectual shock troops they are. That is how you win. Because if they're not taking the incoming fire, you are. And the shock troops are much better equipped psychologically..

And the moderates, as noted above, still have too much longing for acceptance and to be seen as "pragmatic" and "practical" and "nice" to take the time to realize that it is an outright Cultural war to the death, moderates on both sides be damned.

VD writes: This is the same divide between dialectic and rhetoric that I keep pointing out to everyone. You do NOT fight a rhetorical battle with dialectic; in a rhetorical battle the only use for dialectic is in a rhetorical manner; it can be used to explode pseudo-dialectic poses, but that is the extent of its effectiveness. It is an intrinsically defensive weapon on the rhetorical level. This means you cannot win with it.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler is writing about his early days in Vienna when he encountered the strange "Social Democracy". It wasn't just about "worker's rights" but something altogether alien. He also noticed the same thing that VD recognizes, "You have to fight Poison gas with Poison gas". (pg 44, Manheim translation, Mariner book) Their ideology was so twisted that they operated on slogans. He called "poison poured on the people. This was all before his 20th year. It was a gospel of a new humanity.

SJWs are Social Democracy all over again, prepping for a New Humanity.

Hitler and Mussolini were right. (Somewhere in that process though it got derailed.) VD in his observations of SJWs is confirming the analysis of Hitler in his first 70 pages of Mein Kampf. I urge all people to read at least the first and second chapters of Mein Kampf--we are reliving the same thing. Obama is only the head of "Social Democracy". Hitler rightly points out that "Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable." (pg 78)

There's always some #GamerGate moderate trying to compromise or organize a leadership committee to negotiate or, heaven for-fend, produce a gaming constitution which is fair to all sides! It's hard to know if they are stupid or actually working for the other side.

One guy was saying #GG needed a leader to defend them in the MSM! He really didn't understand that the Anti-SJW brigade and MSM are in collusion from the start.

"Look, if Mr Hitler want's to kill all the Jews and you don't want any killed. What if we just kill half of them? That seems fair doesn't it?

That is, examples of the kind of people who have strayed to the opposite sides in danger number 2, who hate each other with white-hot passion, and for whom anyone with a mature position "in the middle" is seen as being in cahoots with the enemy.

Both sides pat themselves on the back, because at least "they aren't like THOSE guys on the other side".

I am really struggling with this. For a long time, I've considered myself to be a "culture war pacifist" and refused to have anything to do with it. But sooner or later, I know the war will come to me, whether I like it or not.

How do we as Christians justify counter-attacking progressives? I am honestly trying to figure this one out, because I really dislike conflict, and I would much prefer to mind my own business. At the same time, I understand the battle front is being moved closer and closer, and I'm eventually going to have to stand up against it.

I wish I had something more substantial to offer, but at this point I'm just frustrated. Maybe I will get encouragement from the Word. Maybe I will simply hold my hand until it's my turn to play.

and is ALL about Kumbahyah and possibly spiritualistic phenomena (tongues, prophecy etc.).

You can be quite for tongues, prophecy, etc. without being gung ho for a vague "we are all wonderful idea," especially if you really study the Scriptures. Being against the latter two is definitely going against what is written. Both must confirm the Scriptures to be valid, but they are clearly Biblical points.

====

The thing I find ironic is that I find I am becoming more in line with the anti-SJW messages as the SJWs are the extreme ones.

I am honestly trying to figure this one out, because I really dislike conflict, and I would much prefer to mind my own business.

Read more of the Epistles. All the Apostles (early book of Acts through the writings of Paul) were quick to confront heresy, which is really the core of what we are facing now. Paul stood for what was right regardless of what he cost him. A pure pacifistic approach is not to be found their, at least not one that lets evil overrun the world.

Turning the other cheek against someone who personally annoys you is not the same thing as being silent while someone propogates another gospel.

Jeff Hendricks wrote:How do we as Christians justify counter-attacking progressives? I am honestly trying to figure this one out, because I really dislike conflict, and I would much prefer to mind my own business. At the same time, I understand the battle front is being moved closer and closer, and I'm eventually going to have to stand up against it.

I used to be where you are. Your counterattack is Truth. Truth needs no justification. The fact that you "really dislike conflict" means you need to grow up (I know this from personal experience). It won't be pleasant and it won't be easy, but you need to do it. This does not mean that you need to be on the offensive all the time, but what it does mean is that when you defend yourself, you need to do it in a manner which takes no prisoners and leaves no options. In other words, decisively.

This is why conservatives can never retain power long enough to do any good, and it is why libertarians can never make headway.

No. It is because they are both the prostitute bitches of Globalist Financiers pushing "free trade" and "coloured" migration and common core govt training. See the Wall St Journals latest advice to Jeb.The bi-factional ruling parties only need to swap occasionally for appearance sake, and the platform of Libs is - wait for it - free trade and the migration of peoples to facilitate it, aka high finance (and the special right of females to murder).

a) To deny, or literally never think about, the existence of demons. These guys don't understand the enemy's strategy at all, and are therefore easy prey.

or

b) To take an unhealthy interest in demons, and see a devil on every corner. These are the guys who are always rebuking the devil (say, because their throat is a bit sore), and in general making Christianity look silly to everyone but themselves.

Stand with dissenters who have something productive to say. But embracing every idiot with partial allegiance is madness. Have the Dems embraced their poster children of Fred Phelps and Lyndon Larouche?

The Dems have embraced their poster children of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan. And they haven't rejected Lyndon LaRouche so much as bypassed that crowd, via the "Well, they are extreme, but some of their points are valid" approach.

Years ago when Farrakhan was new to the scene a self-hating white liberal I knew said almost exactly those words to me, something like "Well, yes, he does say some atrocious things but those are for his followers, and besides the Klan said and did far worse in the 30's, so he's reacting to the misdeeds of white people". I was far too young then to dismantle this kind of thing.

But that remains one of the standard progtard "criticisms" of their own fanatics, "Sure, extreme, but does have a point" thus shifting the focus away from fanatic words and actions and towards the usual suspects of "raycism", and now "classism", "homophobia", etc.

Just ask a progtard with children about Dan Savage, and see what you get. A lot of "Well, yes, but…" followed by a kind of programmed response about the sufferings of the LGBLT sandwiches.

How do we as Christians justify counter-attacking progressives? I am honestly trying to figure this one out, because I really dislike conflict, and I would much prefer to mind my own business. At the same time, I understand the battle front is being moved closer and closer, and I'm eventually going to have to stand up against it.

You have to choose where you will stand:

Joshua 24:15

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Except for his "derailed" aside, W.Lindsay Wheeler is correct in his remark (about the NSDAP, anyway; I haven't really studied Mussolini). And of course, the original post in this thread is 100% accurate, and something that everything, and I mean everyone on any variety of the Alt Right or trad right, must, must begin to comprehend.

Came across an image today that we would all do well to remember. They say all this coming and did their level best to try and stop it:

honestly... I mean do people even read the Bible? the words are even in red for the slow types... just look at how He handled the Pharisees. I mean for crying out loud how can you read that and conclude that verbally attacking someone is anti-christian? He didn't just attack them.... He prison raped them... publicly.

Nate, Brother Rudyard had some interesting things to say about the lukewarm as well:

And Peter twirled the jangling keys in weariness and wrath."Ye have read, ye have heard, ye have thought," he said, "and the tale is yet to run:By the worth of the body that once ye had, give answer - what ha' ye done?"Then Tomlinson looked back and forth, and little good it bore,For the Darkness stayed at his shoulder-blade and Heaven's Gate before:"O this I have felt, and this I have guessed, and this I have heard men say,And this they wrote that another man wrote of a carl in Norroway."- "Ye have read, ye have felt, ye have guessed, good lack! Ye have hampered Heaven's Gate;There's little room between the stars in idleness to prate!O none may reach by hired speech of neighbour, priest, and kinThrough borrowed deed to God's good meed that lies so fair within;Get hence, get hence to the Lord of Wrong, for doom has yet to run,And...the faith that ye share with Berkeley Square uphold you, Tomlinson!"...And he yearned to the flare of Hell-Gate there as the light of his own hearth-stone.The Devil he sat behind the bars, where the desperate legions drew,But he caught the hasting Tomlinson and would not let him through."Wot ye the price of good pit-coal that I must pay?" said he,"That ye rank yoursel' so fit for Hell and ask no leave of me?I am all o'er-sib to Adam's breed that ye should give me scorn,For I strove with God for your First Father the day that he was born.Sit down, sit down upon the slag, and answer loud and highThe harm that ye did to the Sons of Men or ever you came to die."..."Do ye think I would waste my good pit-coal on the hide of a brain-sick fool?I see no worth in the hobnailed mirth or the jolthead jest ye didThat I should waken my gentlemen that are sleeping three on a grid."

Talking with an SJW is a battle of emotional buttons. Their words are trying to push yours (and the audience). But it works both ways as the last Twitter exchange shows. Call them racist and they disappear in a puff of acrid smoke signals.Cannibals are not interested in having you for lunch for a conversation.

"The primary difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left instinctively defends its extremists and the Right instinctively runs from them and leaves them out to dry."

That's a heck of an insight. I wish I thought of that before. For some weird reason, the left has had enough of the high ground in the intellectual battle to keep the right on the defensive to the point of killing off their own.

But some of the right's affinity of killing off its extreme elements comes from the fact that many who claim to be on the right are really just interlopers from the left who have no tolerance for right extremes. This is why we get folks like David Frum and Charles Krauthammer doing leftwing damage from inside the right. I always knew that Frum was a fake, but I never realized just how bad Krauthammer was before being annointed as somehow right wing. Krathammer worked as a psychiatric MD doing research for the Carter Administration, became Walter Mondale's speech writer in 1980, and then went to work for The New Republic. I cannot imagine a more powerful resume for being an enforcer against right-wing extremism.

Perhaps it is all the fake right wingers - many from Canada - who are a material reason why the right is quick to root out its extreme elements.

To Jeff Hendricks, "Life is War". It is a part of Nature. There is no peace. Peace is the vanquishing of the enemy. War is conducted thru the culture. There is a religious/racial war going on thru the culture, thru language, thru ideas. Political correctness is about enforcing Marxist culture upon the rest of us. It is a war. SJWs are conduction war with rhetoric. "Freedom" is value neutral because it has no instrinsic meaning, i.e. there are too many meanings; there is definite idea of that. Roman Catholicism has instrinsic meaning and so does race. Rhetoric has to be fought by rhetoric--they are Marxists enforcing their ideology. It is cultural war.

I know the birch society is persona non grata, but I've never heard why. People just say the name with the same distaste they have for "truthers", but I've never seen the justification for it. I never cared to look, either, but now that you mention it, maybe it's worth seeing why they're so loathed.

How do we as Christians justify counter-attacking progressives? I am honestly trying to figure this one out, because I really dislike conflict, and I would much prefer to mind my own business.

Are you going to accept or openly reject lies? Are you going to pretend to accept them in public, but secretly dissent? Rejecting lies is all the justification you need. Do you truly think I don't prefer to mind my own business? I don't go out seeking conflict, I simply mind my own business and conflict comes seeking me.

All I have ever done is say what I think on my own site, on WND, or in my books. That has been considered sufficiently provocative to make me one of the great devils to the SJWs.

It's been a hoot watching #MetalGate unfold this week, and many #GamerGate-ers have lent their support and knowledge. I've tried to reiterate Vox's main points about dealing with SJWs and it seems to be going well. The SJWs aren't even lamenting the dearth of women/minorities in Metal or that fans often use the word "faggot" any more. They've been reduced to repeating over and over again that #MetalGate doesn't exist or it was all an evil scheme by #GamerGaters. I'm really glad I paid attention to #GamerGate. Thanks, y'all.

For those liberals who believe that Jewish identity should be limited to donating to help Haiti, agitating for illegal aliens and promoting the environment; Chanukah is a threatening holiday. They have secularized it, dressed it up with teddy bears and toys, trimmed it with the ecology and civil rights of their new faith. Occasionally a Jewish liberal learns the history of it and writes an outraged essay about nationalism and militarism, but mostly they are content to bury it in the same dark cellar that they store the rest of the history of their people and the culture that they left behind. - See more at: http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/#sthash.bYvwvRE9.dpuf

Don't forget that the menorah is also a Christian symbol, the seven candle one, anyway.

I know the birch society is persona non grata, but I've never heard why

There are several questions here:

* Why do conservatives dismiss the Birchers (and Robert Welch) with prejudice?* How did that come to be?* Why did it come to be?

How it came to be: largely through the efforts of the young C.I.A. agent who had become a sort of intellectual leader of a resurgent conservative movement centered on a periodical named National Review.

Why it came to be: Welch attacked Eisenhower directly, accusing him of being, at the very least, a willing foil of the communists, but more probably an actual communist himself. His book The Politician is worth at least a casual reading.

"And then I looked down at my What Would Jesus Do? bracelet... so I set him on fire and sent him to hell." -Some comedian.

Jesus wasn't passive. Even when he wasn't fighting, he wasn't passively staying out of things. He was yelling, "get behind me, Satan!"

I've never seen "turn the other cheek" as passive, either. I always interpreted it as an even more insulting, yet self empowering gesture. If he strikes your face, and you offer your other cheek, it's kind of like saying, "you hit like a bitch. Care to try again?"

"Moderates" are usually either liberals who don't have the stomach for the label or so-called centrists who look at every issue from a variable lens instead of looking at them from one principled position. They usually must be defeated along with the liberals, although you can temporarily win them over with the right appeal to their selfish morality.

Thanks for your colorful replies. Don't have time to address each and every one, but I'll at least address VD:

"Are you going to accept or openly reject lies? Are you going to pretend to accept them in public, but secretly dissent? Rejecting lies is all the justification you need. Do you truly think I don't prefer to mind my own business? I don't go out seeking conflict, I simply mind my own business and conflict comes seeking me.

All I have ever done is say what I think on my own site, on WND, or in my books. That has been considered sufficiently provocative to make me one of the great devils to the SJWs."

I can clarify my thought process thusly:

I'm not 100% convinced that everything secular = heresy, and I'm trying to figure out where to draw the line. There are plenty of things that go against God's word and could be considered heresy, but that doesn't mean we have to actively seek and destroy every single one as a personal vendetta. I want to choose my battles wisely, and make them count. "Rejecting lies" is good, but which ones really matter?

It's not a matter of wanting to avoid *all* conflict, but deciding how much is *neccessary*. I'm not afraid of it, and I'm not a stranger to it. I just dislike it. I don't relish conflict, any more than I relish disciplining my children. I know it's necessary, I just haven't figured out to what extent.

If you say you don't seek out conflict, then I applaud you. It certainly doesn't look that way, but I suppose you've created enough enemies from speaking the truth over the years that you have no shortage of haters. I haven't had that pleasure... yet. I apologize for assuming you sought it out in any way, based on the (dare I say it) apparent glee and satisfaction with which you dispatch your detractors.

Which brings me to the crux of the matter for Christians: speaking truth in love. I'm sure you're familiar with Ephesians 4, especially vs. 25-27. How can we balance "curb stomp the SJW's" and also obey "In your anger, do not sin"? For fear of letting my anger get a hold of me, I'd rather not fight than sin against God. In the end, I have to answer to God for my actions. This war will go on, with or without me. I have to weigh what obligations I have, in good conscience, with what I know God demands of me.

To reiterate: If someone brings the fight to me, I have no qualms about defending myself, using whatever means necessary. But I have not been personally attacked for my faith like you have. (That is likely because I'm not vocal enough about it, I admit.) Doesn't change the fact that I'm not short-tempered and don't like to fight, especially with emotionally-charged idiots.

"On the other, you might become a mushy emo Christian who rejects anything that doesn't feel good, and is ALL about Kumbahyah and possibly spiritualistic phenomena (tongues, prophecy etc.)."

Yeah, but that's not really mysticism, that's just New Age bibble-babble. Real mysticism is Saint Theresa and Saint Francis of Assisi, who, though a mystic, managed to get quite a lot done.

btw, my understanding of the gift of tongues comes from Acts: viz., if I don't speak Finnish and you don't speak English but somehow when I speak you still understand me, isn't that the gift of tongues? Babbling incoherently in the church aisle don't sound like the real McCoy.

If you say you don't seek out conflict, then I applaud you. It certainly doesn't look that way, but I suppose you've created enough enemies from speaking the truth over the years that you have no shortage of haters.

Every single "enemy" you can name is someone who has specifically gone out of their way to seek me out. Every single one... with one exception. Michelle Malkin. I targeted her for the falsehoods in her book. Everyone else, from Amanda to PZ to Dana Loesch to the Nielsen Haydens to Scalzi to the various trolls attacked me before I had even heard of them.

I apologize for assuming you sought it out in any way, based on the (dare I say it) apparent glee and satisfaction with which you dispatch your detractors.

I actually find it tiresome and tedious. But, once I get started, it's a game. And I enjoy playing games. It's like going to see a movie you don't want to see. If you're smart, you figure out a way to enjoy it. And perhaps you do genuinely enjoy it. But that doesn't meant that you wanted to see it.

There are plenty of things that go against God's word and could be considered heresy, but that doesn't mean we have to actively seek and destroy every single one as a personal vendetta. I want to choose my battles wisely, and make them count. "Rejecting lies" is good, but which ones really matter?

The ones that are thrown in your face with the expectation that silence = assent.

Zippo, that's how I always understood it as well. When they came to proselytize, they didn't speak the language. Somehow, the natives understood them. Babbling on the floor seems more indicative of cerebral hemorrhaging, to be honest.

Back when she was calling herself "Mamalogues". She's a complete media whore. Don't make the mistake of taking her at face value. She was trying to do the mommyblogger thing, then she successfully leeched onto the Tea Party. I laughed when I saw her pull that off and stick the landing.

What she says isn't bad, but I doubt her principles run very deep, assuming they exist at all. As a media conservative, she's much more media than conservative.

Scintan - As a person whose political orientation has consistently scored as "centrist" and would therefore be a moderate, I find myself in disagreement with you on this. I hold SJW's in raw, seething contempt, have yet to capitulate to one, and only get worse with age. I read these antiSJW threads of Vox's with an almost unhealthy level of enjoyment. And for what it's worth, I derive my morality from the Bible, not myself. That being said, if you strive to "defeat" me somehow, you'd only be working against an ally, which seems contrary to the whole point Vox is trying to make here. If those of us that stand against the Thought Police are divided among ourselves, or turn on each other or exclude each other for disqualifications that range from trivial to imaginary, how are we any better than the social justice worms? How would we hope to prevail? In summary, I just reject the idea that extremists leaving your moderates out to dry is any better than moderates leaving your extremists out to dry when we're all on the same anti-rabbit page.

Treat the actual moderates civilly and politely, as respected allies. But do NOT listen to their advice or permit them leadership positions. They are followers to the bone. And methodically expose the fake moderates who are actually shills for the other side.

Wheeler.....Fascism=Communnism. Hitler was an artist, Stalin a bueraucrat. Also, there was the diff in national characters of Russian and German. Hitler was more populist. Very little diff. I'll take George Washington over both of them.

"Embrace the extremists. Defend them. Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated."

This is too often a losing strategy as almost always the extremists' arguments amount to sloppy rhetoric that is easily taken down by better rhetoric or simple dialectic, whether pointing out their suppositions are unsustainable against facts or, as is more often the case, that their hypothoses are indictments of their view of the truth.

For me, the goal is not to convince the SJWs, but to convince onlookers. Pointing out their errors and hypocrisies works for that, if you don't back down. And make sure you're not wrong, and don't overstate your case. You don't have to be terribly aggressive either. A few weeks ago, in a book discussion group, a woman bemoaned the fate of Darks being sent to maximum security prisons for having an ounce of marijuana. "Nobody goes to San Quentin Prison for an ounce of marijuana" I said. "Well..for an ounce and a half, then" It wasn't necessary to pursue her further, the point was made, and I'm not being ostracized for bullying a silly old woman. But if the SJW is aggressive, tear them up. The silly old woman's husband is a big lefty with a big mouth. He was blathering about immigration and I humiliated him by pointing out that, as a union man, he ought know that cheap imported labor hurts the working class. He just shut up and sat down. Again, I did not lose credibility with onlookers because they all knew he was a bully himself. (I suppose that pointing out that cheap labor hurts the working class was dialectic, and pointing out that he was a union man was rhetoric?)

But always know that the fight is for real. It may be politic to go easy on some people, but keep in mind that they will deny you a livelihood for your views. Mercy is a tactic, not a principle.

As for choosing your battles, if you can't fight all the time, fight when you have all the facts on your side and you can call them readily to mind. I have certain pet issues that I will chase. I've been told on this site that I'm aspie, but so what. I have made it my task to point out that all social statistics about Hispanics are lies, that the supposedly higher IQd Chinese in this country are not representative of their countrymen, and so forth.

So happy warfare, everybody. No mercy until they are licking our boots, maybe.

There's really no point in distinguishing moderates from extremists and so forth: one man's moderate is another man's you know the rest. The only true distinction is between those who see reality clearly, and those who see it through their personal choice of fun-house mirror.

Scintan - As a person whose political orientation has consistently scored as "centrist" and would therefore be a moderate, I find myself in disagreement with you on this. I hold SJW's in raw, seething contempt, have yet to capitulate to one, and only get worse with age. I read these antiSJW threads of Vox's with an almost unhealthy level of enjoyment. And for what it's worth, I derive my morality from the Bible, not myself.

Assuming you live in the west: how can you be a political "moderate" if you truly derive your morality from the bible*?

*Mind you, I'm not talking about a perverting of biblical morality a la the current pope.

I agree, zippo. I am a moderate racist and anti-Semite. I think Blacks are, on average, significantly less intelligent and more violent than Whites. But I don't hate them. I think that Mexicans are, while not as bad as Blacks, not up to White standards. But I don't hate them. I, as a rule, do not trust Jews, but I do not hate them. There are people I know in all these groups that I believe to be fine neighbors and good Americans.

I think I see things clearly. But I don't hate those who do hate these groups either. Perhaps they see more clearly than I. At least they're not blind.

I've never seen "turn the other cheek" as passive, either. I always interpreted it as an even more insulting, yet self empowering gesture. If he strikes your face, and you offer your other cheek, it's kind of like saying, "you hit like a bitch. Care to try again?"

There's definitely an element of provocation. But the main point is that this is something different than "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth."

Consider the other examples Jesus listed - giving a tunic as well as a cloak, going 2 miles instead 1 mile. A Jew could legally sue for someone's cloak but not the tunic. Roman soldiers could demand people to carry their baggage for a mile, but not more.

Someone can legally demand certain things of you; by going beyond the legal limits to do a good thing unto others - you demonstrate that you are a child of a perfect Father in heaven. In His perfection He gives sun and rain even to the evil and unrighteous. His children's good deeds are likewise - necessary sun and rain to men.

It's a shift from "what I deserve" to "I do this beyond what you deserve".

To hook this up with the previous "Hollywood receives just desserts" post:

Besides the usual Gen-X penchant to say "Meh" and disassociate from most anything, the lack of public support for anyone who seems to have gone over an increasingly fine-hemmed edge is, more than likely, largely thanks to the constant replaying of the moral dilemma to end all dilemmas, in both tv and movies: "Support bigots BAD." Which ultimately ended up as "Support buggery GOOD".

Given the situation during the 50's and 60's, I can see how it was easier for someone like, say, Rod Serling to portray anyone who opposed deviations from societal norms* as just another strain of those darned Nazis we fought over in Europe. And of course, others that worked the same idiot box magic, plank by plank, built on that foundation with the feelgood crusades of their day, building a little tower to reach unto heaven until finally, and perhaps inevitably, turning it into full sympathy for... well, the usual man behind the curtain.

Thankfully, Serling didn't live long enough to see that the future would contrast his craftsmanship against not only the cesspool of current entertainment - for anti-establishment needs only work its magic with the fullness of time - but against the realities of the real world; that what he saw as a greater moral message through his craft would ultimately look more like the workings of a pen from the safety of an ivory hightower.

I did not realize that Markku. I took your comment in the context of many who discard much of the Scriptures in those areas. I do agree that someone can use "the spirit" as an excuse to act on their emotions.

When I could afford it, I belonged to the John Birch Society. It is a great organization.

Why it got the hate press that it did was because it was anti-communist. To be anti-communist was to be "anti-jewish" to some extent. All the media, academia and power leaders have been if not outright Marxists, cultural Marxists. To some degree, every body is a Marxist. If you are for democracy past the Renaissance, one is a Marxist. Buckley was always careful to stay just to the right of the media. The Marxists always paint their adversaries as the most evilest of people. Hell, the Bolsheviks called the Mensheviks, Fascists. If you are not a doctrinaire Marxist--you're a fascist as far as they are concerned. The Birchers all, are just like the Tea Party, decent people who wanted to keep the American way of life. The Bircher press outed the communist infiltration in Academia, in the press and in politics. Just like the Catholic Joseph McCarthy, who was on the right track--Look at what they did to him.

Rhetoric is what matters. Who wins, is the first to call the other names. Besides NBC, CBS, and ABC were all started by Jews and controlled by Jews. Anything that smacks of nationalism or populism is attacked and smeared before it ever gets off the ground. The Birchers were too dangerous for the Jew to get off the ground. The same stuff directed at the Tea Party was Leveled against the Birch Society.

Lesson: There is no such thing as tolerance or diversity. That is a fool's game. You can't live with evil. Plain and simple.

I disagree that the left always defend their extremists. They are in the fortunate position of being able to deny the linkage to their most progressive elements, since they control the mass media. Nobody arguing for anal marriage had to defend NAMBLA. Greens do not have eco-terrorists hung around their necks. Etc.

Scintan - I'm not going to go to great lengths to defend the moderate/centrist position or anything, all I can say is that from a history of being apolitical, I wondered what my leanings might be if I had any, and took the assessment tests. I took a number of them, to ascertain consistency, and it invariably put me in the center. I have less and less regard for the papacy and the RCC, and the more the SJW's shake their furry little rabbit fists at my God and my faith, the more fun it is for me. So perhaps there is a dichotomy between my political moderation and my spiritual extremism. In the end, it isn't the former by which I'll in turn be assessed.

Besides NBC, CBS, and ABC were all started by Jews and controlled by Jews

Liberal Jews. The kind that try to pretend Chanukah is not about nationalism and military means of protecting one's culture. The globalist progjews are the modern equivalent of the hellenizers the macabees fought.

From the article: "It is important to note that science denialism is different from mere criticism or skepticism, both of which are very healthy."

i.e., This time, you've gone too far. You're not a true skeptic, you're not Pyrrhonian. Here, let me show you the correct way, with some concrete examples from a controversial area of research that I'm currently doing grad work on at Uni...

Can appreciate the ideal he's going for, as well as the sally against feminism. But beyond some of his criticisms of other side's lack of dialectic prowess (surprising, I know) once you see the comfy slippers go on it sure as hell doesn't look like much more than lip service. Would imagine to an atheist or agnostic, this would be the equivalent of a Protestant and Roman Catholic arguing about the angelic capacity of a pinhead.

Babbling incoherently in the church aisle don't sound like the real McCoy.

Paul said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else. That was prayer, not talking between languages. Believe what you will, but clearly it is more than just talking to others. The context of his boast was using the gift in tongues. It was a check on their extremes, but it was not forbidding it nor banishing it to only those in foreign missions.

Some Pentecostals may go a bit extreme with it, but what does man do that isn't vulnerable to such?

Paul said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else. That was prayer, not talking between languages. Believe what you will, but clearly it is more than just talking to others. The context of his boast was using the gift in tongues

some believe the special gifts given to the apostles ended during the time of Acts 28, when the time of proselytizing to the Jews ended.

Markku,For a cyborg that was an excellent bit of analysis! I'm very impressed. Given Nate's shouts of "stupid Calvinist" I had a potentially different initial view of your views. But I got Vox wrong too at first. I shall continue to observe. Out of curiosity, do you have an online expression of part of your outlook written down anywhere?

"Are you going to accept or openly reject lies? Are you going to pretend to accept them in public, but secretly dissent? Rejecting lies is all the justification you need. Do you truly think I don't prefer to mind my own business? I don't go out seeking conflict, I simply mind my own business and conflict comes seeking me."

Exactly. Our crime is basically called "shooting back". Even when we are very patient about starting to do so in the first place.

"All I have ever done is say what I think on my own site, on WND, or in my books. That has been considered sufficiently provocative to make me one of the great devils to the SJWs."

I don't know my bible well enough yet to quote chapter and verse, but I believe Jesus said something along the lines of: speak the truth and you shall be persecuted. Things are now so bad on Earth that even just trying to do so makes you a target. But truth is lime an instinct, something in our DNA. It might lie dormant for eons, but the right spark will set off a veritable fire. I dare say, Mr. Flaming sword, that you have set off more thana few sparks. Respect to the Red Man.

"I've never seen "turn the other cheek" as passive, either. I always interpreted it as an even more insulting, yet self empowering gesture. If he strikes your face, and you offer your other cheek, it's kind of like saying, "you hit like a bitch. Care to try again?""

All of them. A lie is NOT the truth. So start by rejecting the ones you are SURE are lies.

It's not a matter of wanting to avoid *all* conflict, but deciding how much is *neccessary*. I'm not afraid of it, and I'm not a stranger to it. I just dislike it.

I don't know anyone sane who likes it.

I don't relish conflict, any more than I relish disciplining my children. I know it's necessary, I just haven't figured out to what extent.

See above re lies. Any that impact on your life. Size of the gun you bring may reflect your willingness to get in the fight. My personal advice is only carry a big one and only use it when you need to, but don't hesitate, waver or stop until the enemy is no longer a threat.

If you say you don't seek out conflict, then I applaud you. It certainly doesn't look that way, but I suppose you've created enough enemies from speaking the truth over the years that you have no shortage of haters. I haven't had that pleasure... yet. I apologize for assuming you sought it out in any way, based on the (dare I say it) apparent glee and satisfaction with which you dispatch your detractors.

A man who gets good at doing a thing naturally takes some pride in his work. I know I do in my day job, even if most of the time, it has almost nothing to do with my deeper being or interests.

Which brings me to the crux of the matter for Christians: speaking truth in love. I'm sure you're familiar with Ephesians 4, especially vs. 25-27. How can we balance "curb stomp the SJW's" and also obey "In your anger, do not sin"? For fear of letting my anger get a hold of me, I'd rather not fight than sin against God. In the end, I have to answer to God for my actions. This war will go on, with or without me. I have to weigh what obligations I have, in good conscience, with what I know God demands of me.

1. If you know what God demands of you , you're way ahead of me so don't understand your problem.2. Given 1 above, how can you FEAR anything? I hardly fear anything now and most days I have no fucking clue how to please God. If I had an inkling I would have none whatsoever. So I would say, do your duty and be unafraid.3. Jesus whipped people in a church. If it was ok for him to do that in the name of truth then I can only say I haven't gone there yet, so I must be ok mostly.

To reiterate: If someone brings the fight to me, I have no qualms about defending myself, using whatever means necessary. But I have not been personally attacked for my faith like you have. (That is likely because I'm not vocal enough about it, I admit.)

As a christian aren't you supposed to spread the word?

Doesn't change the fact that I'm not short-tempered and don't like to fight, especially with emotionally-charged idiots.

My dilemma is not *if* I should fight, but when, and how.

Whenever it becomes necessary. To the death.Metaphorical for non-life-threatening conflicts and physical for actual fights to the death. Unless you are infused with Christian mercy on your enemies.

Embrace the extremists. Defend them. Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated. Allow them to play their role as the intellectual shock troops they are. That is how you win. Because if they're not taking the incoming fire, you are. And the shock troops are much better equipped psychologically to take it and survive than the average self-styled moderate.

LOVE this. Wish it fitted w/in a tweet.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.